Comment by int_19h
5 months ago
A market that has companies with the size - or rather, the market dominance - of the likes of Google is not meaningfully a free market. The fundamental problem isn't whether Google censors or not, nor what it censors, but the very fact that its decision on this matter is so impactful.
If you want to debate anti trust and regulation then let’s do it. Google’s dominance is bad for our society, culture, and our economy but it’s not a reason to erode our fundamental rights. Compelling free speech will do nothing to erode Google’s market share or encourage competition. In fact it will further entrench Google’s dominance.
You're right, but freedom of speech is also a valid angle from which to debate antitrust and regulation. Indeed, I don't want Google to be compelled to platform others - I want platforms that large to not exist in the first place. But pointing out that censorship by big tech megacorps has very real and very negative effects that can be comparable to outright government censorship in some cases is a part of that fight.
> You're right, but freedom of speech is also a valid angle from which to debate antitrust and regulation.
The effect of YouTube’s content moderation size on speech is a symptom of weak antitrust policy, not of free expression. So sure, mention the effect on speech if you want but don’t ignore the solution.
How is compelling google to censor less going to entrench their dominance? If it's purely by making them suck less, I'm okay with that risk.
And I don't think it erodes any fundamental rights to put restrictions on huge monopolies.
> How is compelling google to censor less going to entrench their dominance?
If you force Google alone to amplify certain speech then what competitive advantage does a less censorious service provide?
> If it's purely by making them suck less, I'm okay with that risk.
Define “suck less”. Now ask yourself if you are comfortable with someone you completely disagree with defining what sucks less.
> And I don't think it erodes any fundamental rights to put restrictions on huge monopolies.
You’re talking about antitrust, not free expression.
Compelled speech is an erosion of the first amendment. You may think that erosion is acceptable but you can’t deny it exists.
6 replies →